Not shown: … oh, forget it. Look at the list at the bottom of the story. (Now with fully-aged Labrado.)

The Democratic Party of Orange County Central Committmet last night with two items of business on the agenda: endorsements in non-partisan races and a resolution favoring the construction of two new lanes of traffic on the 405 and opposing toll lanes. As this story is running long, I’ll address the latter in a separate story, most likely tomorrow.

(Let me get my disclosures of declared interest out of the way first: I’m a member of the DPOC Central Committee and Executive Board. I voted in favor of endorsing McLoughlin; I abstained in the vote to endorse Benavides. I sponsored the 405 tolls resolution and contributed to its drafting, although I did neither the first nor the final draft. I’ll try to be as fair as I can here, notwithstanding all of that.)

The Carpenters Hall on Chapman Ave. in Orange was packed last night with a “who’s who” of Orange County Democratic politics, most all of whom came out for endorsements. The endorsements portion of the meeting — which has at times been controversial in recent years — was chaired by Parliamentarian Jeff LeTourneau, who hewed to the letter of the bylaws (leading him and others to comment on the need to revise some of the bylaws, which can most charitably be described as weird when put into practice.) In a sweltering room, the process went relatively smoothly, taking roughly an hour to complete despite several roll-call votes.

Most of the candidates in question (who are listed below) were passed on a “consent calendar,” endorsements for the those listed on which were passed en masse on a voice vote. Only six candidates were denied access to the consent calendar, two taken off of the list manually and two because there were two Democrats running for one position. The latter brought the most controversy.

What had been expected to be the Big Battle of the night instead turned into somewhat of a Big Fizzle. David Benavides and Miguel Pulido had both been expected to vie for the endorsement for the position of Mayor of Santa Ana. To the surprise of most delegates in the audience, however, Pulido did not attend the meeting and pulled out of the endorsement process. That left the assembly with a choice between Benavides and No Endorsement. After hearing from the Councilman (and one member twisting his arm to ensure that a favored candidate received his endorsement for I believe a community college district race), the vote was, by my unofficial cout, overwhelming. Benavides received 35 “yes” votes to 3 “no” votes, with 11 abstentions — well over the 60% threshold required.

In speaking to one seasoned veteran about the lopsided vote afterwards, I was told “the saying goes, never bet against Miguel Pulido.” Be that as it may, if one were ever to consider making an exception to that rule, this seems like a reasonable year to consider it. “35 to 3” is pretty resounding. And with the endorsement through the consent calendar of Vince Sarmiento, Roman Reyna, and Eric Alderete for Santa Ana City Council — who along with Benavides, Sal Tinajero, and Michele Martinez form a self-declared potential six-person majority City Council coalition in opposition to Pulido should the Mayor get re-elected — the Democratic Party of Orange County has turned out to be in de facto support of the “Revolt of the Barons” against the King Manuel the Longlasting. (The most interesting question is one for which I don’t have an answer: why did Pulido abandon his attempt for endorsement?)

It was the “undercard” that led to the closer and more interesting battle. Santa Ana Vice-Mayor Claudia Alvarez was up against Mark McLoughlin, one of two incumbents redistricted into the same race, for the “Area 5” race of the Rancho Santiago Community College District. McLoughlin, presumably the lesser-known candidate for most delegates, spoke first, giving a solid speech listing his record of activity and accomplishment both on the Board and in the broader community. He had a number of solid endorsements, the most influential of which was probably from fellow Board Member John Hanna, who was not in attendance but who had e-mailed voting members. Then came the rebuttal from Claudia Alvarez.

Here I have to admit a bias: I love watching Claudia Alvarez at work. You can see what many years of experience at figuring out how to appeal to juries can do for someone. She came up with a mischevious smile and said something along the lines of “I won’t bore you by reciting a long list of my accomplishments.” Oh, snap! That moment of jujutsu was a cunning, smooth, and nasty move. Brava! She later proclaimed, in response to her McLoughlin’s declaration of support for the DREAM Act, which benefits college students who don’t have legal status to be in the country despite long presence here: “I am the DREAM ACT!” There was more, most of it similarly rousing. God, she’s good at this.

(If Tom Daly is dragged down by scandal in AD-69, Alvarez is one of the people I’d expect might run to replace him, regardless of whether she wins in November. I don’t know if she can sing, but if she doesn’t win this election then I hope that she’d consider being part of a production of the wonderful musical Evita. She has star quality — and, unlike Eva Peron, a law degree. She’d put Madonna’s performance in the movie to shame, not that that would be so hard to do.)

Unfortunately for Alvarez, the sorts of people who are willing to be part of a party Central Committee are not the sorts who are easily bored by lists of accomplishments. We tend, instead, to value and respect them. More to the point, we actually care who gets onto a Community College board — and don’t want it to be considered a temporary sinecure from which one runs for higher office. That’s what determined my vote: McLoughlin seemed to care about responsibly performing the position, while Alvarez is presumably running for something — maybe, depending on how things turned out for her in June, maybe more than one thing — in 2014. I want someone focusing on that job, not on running for their next job. Having Jose Solorio running unopposed for the Board is already bad enough.

I don’t know if others felt the same way when they voted, but McLaughlin won the vote 21 to 11, with by my count a whopping 16 abstentions. That’s a bit over 65%; he only needed over 60%. He gets his name on party literature now, which should be a boost in November as he tries to overcome both a fellow incumbent and the well-known Alvarez.

Two other names of City Council candidates were pulled off of the consent calendar: Jane Egly of Laguna Beach and Jan Flory of Fullerton. Their treatment at the meeting was a study in contrast. Egly was pulled off of the consent calendar by people affiliated with or supporting the Laguna Beach Democratic Club for the alleged crimes of consorting with, supporting, being disproportionately available to, and disproprortionately supportive of (in votes where it mattered) Republicans. Audrey Prosser gave a virtuoso takedown of Egly, who was not present, and by the time she was done no one would even move to endorse her. Personally, I don’t know much about the merits of the charges against Egly, but as a matter of small “d” democracy and demands for deference by the grassroots, which the party granted, it was mighty impressive.

The reaction to Flory’s being pulled off of the consent calendar was diametrically opposed. Here, the local grassroots party club is the Democrats of North Orange County, whose members (of whom, interest declared, I am one) seemed to be disturbed and dismayed by having to vote on Flory’s endorsement separately. (Flory’s fellow Democrat in the race, Kitty Jaramillo, was approved on the consent calendar.)

The reason that Flory was pulled off of the calendar was — and if you’re one of our FFFF-affiliated readers, you may want to sit down before reading further — she was considered to be “soft” on the issue out outsourcing municipal services. This is possibly the Irony of the Year in Orange County politics, given that Flory is campaigning against a slate of libertarian candidates who are hell-bent on outsourcing municipal services and may be one of the most significant impediments to their success. Flory and her supporters made the best of it, using the opportunity to educate those from elsewhere in the county about the current attempted Wisconsinification of Fullerton. Irvine’s Beth Krom moved for her endorsement, which passed with only token opposition.

I think that I’ve gotten down all of the names of those endorsed as a group through the consent calendar, but this list should be taken as unofficial. More endorsements for those who didn’t get in their papers in time (including Diana Carey of Westminster, who will play a significant role in the story on the 405 resolution but was not contacted about the endorsement opportunity, and apparently some from Orange), will come in September’s meeting. Here’s that list:

Aliso Viejo City Council: Ross Chun

Anaheim City Council: Jordan Brandman (note: John Leos and others are ineligible, not being Democrats)

Anaheim Unified School Board: John Santoianni and Al Jabbar

Centralia School District: Arturo Montez

Coast Community College Trustee: Jerry Patterson (note: other Democratic incumbents are unopposed)

In a discussion elsewhere here, a commenter recently suggested to me that no one cares about the Democratic Party endorsements. All I can say is: I beg to differ!

About Greg Diamond

Somewhat verbose worker's rights and government accountability attorney, residing in northwest Brea. General Counsel of CATER, the Coalition of Anaheim Taxpayers for Economic Responsibility, a non-partisan group of people sick of local corruption.
Deposed as Northern Vice Chair of DPOC in April 2014 when his anti-corruption and pro-consumer work in Anaheim infuriated the Building Trades and Teamsters in spring 2014, who then worked with the lawless and power-mad DPOC Chair to eliminate his internal oversight.
Occasionally runs for office to challenge some nasty incumbent who would otherwise run unopposed. (Someday he might pick a fight with the intent to win rather than just dent someone. You'll know it when you see it.) He got 45% of the vote against Bob Huff for State Senate in 2012 and in 2014 became the first attorney to challenge OCDA Tony Rackauckas since 2002.
None of his pre-putsch writings ever spoke for the Democratic Party at the local, county, state, national, or galactic level, nor do they now.
A family member co-owns a business offering campaign treasurer services to Democratic candidates and the odd independent. He is very proud of her. He doesn't directly profit from her work and it doesn't affect his coverage. (He does not always favor her clients, though she might hesitate to take one that he truly hated.)
He does advise some local campaigns informally and (so far) without compensation. (If that last bit changes, he will declare the interest.)

Thank you, Sean. My error; the senior Labrado is running. Accordingly, I have substituted Labrados in the collage. The incorrect earlier version will, upon their request, be e-mailed to either Labrado for use in a “Dewey Defeats Truman” sort of photo.

Flory has the potential to poison the whole Democrat slate come November. She’s that polarizing. Someone from DOPC better give her the cliff notes version of how to filter speech.

Not only was the comment about Travis Kiger’s mother woefully lacking in good judgement, it was also sexist. I understand that mother Kiger actually approached Ms. Flory about the comment after the meeting and did not receive an apology.

I am flabbergasted that this is the kind of candidate that DOPC seeks to endorse. In contrast with Kitty– who attends meetings and participates with little fanfare without demand for self attention– Ms. Flory has yet to demonstrate any viable plan for healing wounds in Fullerton or any recent positive action of any kind.

Ms. Flory has only made strides and statements in the negative direction since announcing her candidacy. The DOPC just aligned it self with Don Bankhead and the rest of the old guard who were booted out of office not three months ago on a 2-1 margin.

Greg, not to stick it to you or anyone at DOPC in particular, but this endorsement fails a basic political intelligence test. She’s bad news with no upside, aligns the party with the one individual (Bankhead) who’s toxic enough to sink the entire ballot– including Kitty if she’s not careful.

So– why? Did the committee really feel that not endorsing the candidate would be so catastrophic to the ticket and fabric of the Democrat community that it couldn’t be tolerated or are we talking something as simple as old connections, old money, and old favors that simply couldn’t be ignored to facilitate the greater good in Fullerton?

First, it’s “DPOC.” Since you’re coming on board, I’ll edit your comment for you just this once if you’d like.

Kitty Jaramillo was endorsed, on the consent calendar.

I’m pretty sure that we haven’t “aligned ourself with Don Bankhead,” since I don’t know of any Democrat (Flory included) who is supporting Don Bankhead in this election. Now if you see “Flory/Bankhead” signs out in a while, I will stand corrected. Democrats I know seem to be supporting Flory and Jaramillo, with some also supporting Rands or Alvarez.

The issue (for the DPOC, I believe for Flory herself, and for voters generally) is: do we want there to be a FFFF majority on the Fullerton Council? I’m confortable with two FFFFsters on Council (especially if one of them is Sebourn, who while awfully libertarian does not seem like he’d be satisfied with burning the whole structure of government to the ground), but not three. If they can convince a Chaffee — or a Rands, or a Flory, or a Jaramillo, or a Fitzgerald, an Alvarez, or even a Bankhead — that some scheme I suspect is lamebrained is actually a good policy, then I’m prepared to breathe deeply and watch it play out. But if it’s just the three of them in their insular world — no way. That’s as bad in its way as the Jones, McKinley, Bankhead regime was before.

Why did DPOC endorse Flory? Well, besides that on her first day of office she would have more experience on Council than the other four members combined, she’s a smart woman who will stand in the way of the Wisconsification of Fullerton. If she was rude to Travis Kiger’s mother — and, you know, there’s a lot of rudeness going around these days, quite a bit of it apparently from Kiger’s corner — that’s a small price to pay for not having a suppurating governmental wound between Anaheim and Brea.

Kiger did not write a single one of those blog posts that Flory took offense to. Is Vern to be chewed out for everything posted here? Or do you all have editorial freedom to post as you see fit and take the lumps when they come? Flory came after Kiger simply for his association with some who write things that are less than kind. Kiger does not own the site, he does not edit posts before they go up, and Flory owes him an apology. She came across as a hardened battle-axe. Inexcusable, and classless, and certainly unfit for a civic leadership position. If she is the future of the DPOC, you folks are hosed, which is a shame. While I do not share your political views I always want to see us come together and work toward a common goal of bettering our communities, and Flory is not the person to move Fullerton forward. Sorry. Bad choice.

Cynthia, I have to ask you — do you even read FFFF? Have you done so over the past month?

I have no idea — absolutely none — about whether Kiger, or Bushala, or Whitaker, or Norby, or Sebourn, or Levinson has written any of the particular blog posts (much more vicious than anything Flory said) on FFFF because they are almost uniformly anonymous. Kiger is among the named contributors on the FFFF blog (as well as its webmaster, which to be fair he is here as well so I don’t put much stock in that) as well as one of its four major political beneficiaries. Has he complained, criticized, condemned, anything that has been said there? Flory has ROUTINELY been accused there of of being a drunk and a whore, with lots of commenters (or supposedly lots of them) sniggering at each other’s “wit.” “Hardened battle axe”? How about aggrieved? How about justifiably aggrieved?

And you talk about “classless”?

I admire her for standing up to bullying. If it drives more people to FFFF to have their bile sprayed in their unsuspecting eyes, so much the better. I will presume out of your respect that your expressed desire to see Fullerton “come together and work toward a common goal of bettering our communities” is based on a lack of awareness of how vicious and extreme FFFF has become — with Travis accepting it whether or not (and that’s a real question) he personally stokes it or adopts a pseudonym or ten and participates in it.

By all means, Cynthia, let’s turn this election into a comparison between the deportment of Jan Flory versus her cowardly anonymous character assassins on the site from which Travis Kiger profits politically (whether or not personally.)

For those who missed it: after reading some of the relatively milder attacks on her (as an “old nag” in a photo taken at Los Alamitos racetrack) and a “bitter bag of bile”), Flory said:

“I would suggest to you, Mr. Kiger, that you have a problem with strong older women. I have no idea what that is. Perhaps your mommy didn’t nurse you long enough.”

She was in essence calling Kiger a spoiled brat, rather than attacking his mother, but I think that the last sentence up there was uncalled for, regardless of any provocation that might have elicited it. I think that Flory should disavow herself from it.

That’s not a condemnation “in the strongest possible terms,” but I do condemn it proportionate to the seriousness of the infraction. (For those who need calibration of my scale of condemnation, it’s going to register a lot lower than the reference by an pseudonymous presumed Kiger supporter to SQS’s physique.)

Now it’s time for me to put together a list of things said by his supporters for Travis to condemn to the extent he thinks it appropriate. This will take some time.

That only begs the question: why is this politics “shrewd”? And if it was shrewd — meaning if he was going to get stomped in the endorsement process of an organization that gave him the nod over Al Amezcua two years ago — then one might ask: why is he in such a predicament?

In my opinion for area 3 Mrs. Mendoza-Yanez cannot be trusted to serve as an honest board member. While checking into her past positions on different boards via the Internet I found that she serves on these boards for her family’s personal gain. Her first board position allowed her to enroll her three children in the Head Start program intended for the low- income families. Two of her children received Gates Millennium Scholarships (financial aid program) intended for “the poor underprivileged students.”. When her last child left for college (Stanford) she and her husband enjoyed a month long vacation in Europe. Real Estate records in Orange County indicate that she and her husband own two properties, their home and one on East Camile. In my opinion Mrs. Mendoza-Yanez has underreported their income in order to qualify for aide intended for low-income families/students. Is this the type of person we want to serve? Can she be trusted? Before you vote check into her past.